Spinoff: How fucking crazy will it be when assault weapons are eventually confiscated?

I hold the unpopular opinion that OJ being found NOT Guilty rather than GUILTY would have been better for our society. Following the Ronnie King verdict, the LA riots happened where 63 people died and damages over $1 billion+ including truckers smashed in the head with bricks and Korean stores looted and burned down. I believe if OJ was found guilty people would've went completely bonkers and race relations would be way worse even by todays standards.

So what does this have to do with guns? I believe when the day comes and the government issues a nation wide confiscation of assault weapons. People are going to completely fucking lose it. I'm talking like it's going to be the fucking Purge. The craziest people in the United States are the gun nuts.

The Supreme Court with it's current makeup will later rule state wide assault weapon bans are unconstitutional which will lead to residents of large populated states like California Illinois and New York to obtain assault weapons. To make matters worse there's a good chance Trump has a chance to replace RBG and if he replaces her privately owned assault weapons will extend another generation.

So when the day comes and the President orders confiscation of assault weapons from say 5 million owners. What do you think will happen? How crazy will shit be? Just remember how bad Ferguson was when a cop killed a black guy.

Lastly, I'm not taking any side of the gun control debate but I'm just asking when an AWB does happen, how bad will people react? Because I think it will be ugly.

I always laugh at these sort of things, mainly because the term assault rifle doesn't actually mean anything. People are afraid of the way guns look not how they actually operate. For example when asked what people would prefer to "ban" you can put two of the exact same weapons on a table the only real difference is one has wood stocks and no rail attachments vs one that is all black and people will say the all black one is more dangerous. People are stupid.

There will not be a nation-wide confiscation. There would be a national buyback program, and anyone caught in possession of an assault weapon would be because of a search based probable cause (I.E. we know this guy has drugs, we search his car, he has an ar-15). Active confiscation would result in a lot of dead cops/national guard. Not feasible. If there's a buy, then I'll bury my ar-15 in a box out in my backyard (or hide it real good somewhere else)

If 2nd Amendment is repealed in our hypothetical Blade Runner scenario, I believe this should be a question left up to the states to enforce. We do not need a national solution to this because cultures differ amongst states. Texas can have 100 million unregulated guns and see how that social experiment works. California should be able to fully ban guns or put all owners on a registry and see how that social experiment works. Other states can do as they please. This should be the case for drugs as well.

If that's the case, it won't be as difficult as you make it out to be. It's largely a cultural phenomenon where people in Australia and the UK said, "Look, as a broad entity we are not interested in the "freedom" or "security" to own guns versus the consequences we ascribe to them." Each state in the Union should be able to decide that for themselves and people are welcome and free to move if they don't like it.

wouldnt this just have the adverse effect of disproportionately placing guns in the hands of more criminals and therefore further empowering them?

people who own high powered assault rifles genuinely believe that they are a means of self protection...you think theyre gonna trust that the government can confiscate every assault rifle in existence?

No, they're gonna hold onto their guns against the law's orders since theyd be even more skeptical that theyd need it as an absolute defense against the bad guys.

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:1) I was at home2) I was awake3) I could get access to the gun in time4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.Zero.Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?No way.

I also have a 4 year old.You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:1) I was at home2) I was awake3) I could get access to the gun in time4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.Zero.Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?No way.

I also have a 4 year old.You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:1) I was at home2) I was awake3) I could get access to the gun in time4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.Zero.Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?No way.

I also have a 4 year old.You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

No way.That's insanity.

Perhaps you should relocate you and your family to a country more comfortable to you. We have freedoms here that apparently you don't care much for.

It is precisely because of that caring that I speak out against bad policies - such as the wanton dissemination of guns which has killed so many Americans and continues to threaten the lives of so many youngsters.

Voicing ideas about how American policies can be improved and speaking out against gross injustices is the most American thing one can do.

In Switzerland, military service is required if you fit the requirements. Switzerland has no military so every citizen is required to maintain a weapon after training. If war breaks out, if you fit the conditions, you have to be drafted. Why would anyone rob their neighbor if you legitimately know or you a thought they might own a weapon. It's a people problem, not a gun problem. These people who these terrible acts are completely psycho but background checks allows them to own guns in the U.S.A. The worst part is that these insane people are just going to get them illegally. It's just a black market, in society. You can purchase anything in the black market with the laws of supply and demand.

Yes indeed Switzerland is an interesting case - but it is one that is often misunderstood.

Yes, guns are in the hands of every male.

BULLETS however are not.They are tightly controlled.Bullets are kept in local armories, so that if there is a war, the local armory can quickly arm their population.

One cannot get mass shootings if one cannot get bullets.

For Switzeland, it was a balancing act of protecting their sovereignty, while still keeping the population safe from violence.Following 2 world wars instigated by their immediate neighbor, I think their solution is understandable.

They have arms control (via restricting bullet access) but still a deterrent measure.